90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
I will expand
Quote:
"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."
JXL
If BTD imagines a scenario which contains x, is it absolutely true that BTD's hypothetical scenario contains x in BTD's mind?
Yes. BTD's imagination is BTD's imagination. What is true for BTD is true for BTD.
Yes, in your construction, it is absolutely true that my hypothetical scenario contains "x". This would be true for ALL scenarios, real or imagined. It would be absolutely true, PERIOD, regardless of whose mind it is in, or whose imagination conjured up the scenario. It is a LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, which makes it an absolute truth. This has already been proven to you, using the very sources that YOU brought up (If p, then p), and it is unassailable. If you can't see this, then there's nothing more that can be done for you.
I'm being honest - I think you have some sort of thinking problem that you should talk to someone about. At least show this thread to someone you trust and maybe they can help you.
It would be absolutely true, but only for the person imagining it.
NO. This is the central problem with your thinking. It is quite unbelievable that you don't see the problem here. It really has piqued my curiosity.
Do you agree that William actually transitioned into a woman in his hypothetical scenario? Or do you agree with Riley that William just thinks he can and you don't think that's possible?
No, I don't think he did. I don't accept the premise. That's one of your many problems in this argument - you don't see the difference between being asked if you agree with the premise, and being asked if the premise is true, then is it true (a tautology).
William's hypothetical scenario (p): "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
William's (p) contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD's (p) contains (and I'm just spitballing here) someone you think is detached from reality who does something.
William's (p) does not = BTD's (p). The two of you do not agree on what the scenario contains.
No, the disagreement is not on what the scenario contains, but rather whether the scenario reflects what is true or not.
Quote:
"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"
William's hypothetical scenario contains a man who has transitioned into a woman and then does something.
BTD thinks William's hypothetical scenario contains someone who is detached from reality who then does something.
Yes, we would be in disagreement as to what the hypothetical scenario, in truth, contains. In other words, I disagree with the premise - that the hypothetical scenario contains "x". Can you finally get it, please?
BTW, that sounds a lot like something I said in my second post in this thread:
Quote:
Whether or not a hypothetical scenario contains "x" is dependent upon both your imagination and my willingness to accept it. If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.
- If it's an imagined scenario, then of course it depends on the person who's imagining it, otherwise there's no scenario to begin with to reference. That goes without saying. If it's a written scenario or an actual, real life scenario, then it doesn't take anyone's imagination at all.
- Ultimately it does not depend on your willingness to accept whether a scenario contains "x" or not. If a scenario mentioned a cow, for instance, then the cow exists in the scenario regardless of whether you accept it or not.
- The difference with your William scenario is that within the "x" you're asserting another premise - that men can transition into a woman. If you were to just make "x" = man, then there's no denying that a man is in the scenario - a man is specifically mentioned. There is no other premise to accept that he is there in the scenario. However, if you make x = a man that has transitioned to a woman, now you're asserting within "x" the premise that men CAN transition to women, a premise you have to agree with in order to accept the premise entirely.
In other words, your William scenario is more of an example of this construction:
if a hypothetical scenario contains x that asserts the premise y, then it is absolutely true that the scenario contains an x that asserts the premise y. So, if William's scenario contains a man, who it is being asserted has transitioned into a woman, then yes - it is absolutely true that his scenario contains a man, who it is being asserted has transitioned into a woman.
"If there are conditions, there is no absolute" - yes, and in this case the conditions are in the premise, as I've explained above. The question is NOT whether the premise is absolute.